Iraq Rape-Slay Case Hits Snags

Legal Infighting Delays Trial For Private Alleged To Be Mastermind Until April 2009

(AP)  They were convicted one after another - four U.S. soldiers who helped gang rape and kill a 14-year-old Iraqi girl in one of the war's worst atrocities.

In exchange for leniency, each struck deals to testify against a fifth man, a troubled former Army private who allegedly killed the girl's family and planted the idea of raping the teen.

But the case against Steven D. Green has dragged slowly forward in the 18 months since the allegations surfaced. It is a pace, military legal experts note, that bears stark contrast to swift prosecutions of nearly every other crime to come from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Green, 22, is accused of being a central figure in slaying the family in Mahmoudiya, a village about 20 miles south of Baghdad. He was charged in federal court because he was discharged from the Army for anti-social personality disorder before being accused of the crimes.

On Tuesday, his trial was set for April 13, 2009, in Paducah, Kentucky.

Defense attorneys and federal prosecutors in the case have fought each other on the reach of federal courts into military affairs, the access civilian attorneys have to classified military evidence, and, most recently, what constitutes enough time to prepare for trial.

Some legal experts say the delays and infighting suggest challenges ahead in trying the last chapter of what many regard as the worst atrocity committed by U.S. military personnel in Iraq.

"You've got some very smart people trying a type of case that they normally don't," said Charles Rose, a law professor at Stetson University and former deputy military judge advocate. "Federal criminal courts are designed for paper-driven cases. They don't do violations of the laws of war."

Unlike his co-accused, Green, 22, of Midland, Texas, is the only soldier charged in civilian court for the March 2006 slayings, where he faces a possible death sentence if convicted.

Green pleaded not guilty in November 2006 to charges of rape and murder.

Four Fort Campbell, Kentucky-based 101st Airborne Division soldiers have since been convicted for their roles in targeting the girl from a checkpoint near Mahmoudiya and helping rape and kill her. They were given sentences in courts-martial ranging from five to 110 years under agreements with prosecutors.

Two of the soldiers testified they took turns raping the girl while Green shot and killed her mother, father and younger sister. Green shot the girl in the head after raping her, they said. The girl's body was then set on fire with kerosene to destroy the evidence, according to previous testimony.

At the core of Green's trial is the law used to charge him in U.S. District Court. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act allows prosecutors to try military personnel in federal court if they no longer are in the service and are charged for a crime punishable by at least a year in prison.

The law, which has been used rarely, dissolved Green's chances of receiving a sentence comparable to those of the other defendants if he is convicted, attorneys have argued. Each soldier was charged identically, but those convicted in the military have a chance for parole in 10 years no matter the sentence they received.

While legal experts say disparity in sentencing is not unusual, Green's attorneys have argued there is a fundamental issue of fairness that is lost by the government's insistence on trying Green outside of the reaches of the military.

A telephone message seeking comment was left Tuesday at Assistant U.S. District Attorney Marisa Ford's Louisville, Kentucky, office. Green's attorney, Patrick Bouldin, declined to comment Tuesday night.

Delays are expected in a federal death penalty case, where proceedings have lasted as long as three years, legal experts say.

But Gary Solis, a law professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, remains baffled that prosecuting the Mahmoudiya slayings has lingered when so many other crimes in Iraq have come to a close.

Solis said trying Green in U.S. District Court undoubtedly reflects political pressure to ensure the most severe punishment for the crime's alleged ringleader.

[b-easy63]

Actually, the worst atrocity was invading Iraq based on lies. Because it was from that one act, that almost all the other atrocities whether committed by our government, our military, Al Qaeda or insurgents---came into being.

[greco99-2009]

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about this case...and realize Steven Green could walk free.

Here''s the problem -- if they prosecute Steven Green it means they can prosecute rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) law. He now falls into a phony ''legal loophole'' created by Bush and the Neocons to benefit corrupt cronies.

Just consider the choice of law question: which ''rules of evidence'' apply? Under phony Bush law, we get the bizarre result that *no* rules of evidence apply -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law enables prosecution of past and ongoing illegal acts that endanger his cronies (and Cheney''s) profits.

The alleged Haliburton and Blackwater rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole it is not possible to prosecute him.

It is impossible to investigate these companies in their lawless mideast havens. That is why they moved out of the U.S. (and to avoid taxes).

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Helliburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be free to party with your daughter, and there''s nothing anyone can do.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

[gunnerv1]

There may, MAY be a chance of bringing him back on "Active" duty. Did you everthink of that. It''s been done before.

[rickstas]

It says Green has "anti-social personality disorder" -- so he has something in common with the president.

[greco99-2009]

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about this case...and realize Steven Green could walk free.

Here''s the problem -- if they prosecute Steven Green it means they can prosecute rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) law. He now falls into a phony ''legal loophole'' created by Bush and the Neocons to benefit corrupt cronies.

Just consider the choice of law question: which ''rules of evidence'' apply? Under phony Bush law, we get the bizarre result that *no* rules of evidence apply -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law enables prosecution of past illegal acts and ongoing investigations.

The alleged Haliburton adn Blackwater rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.

It is impossible to investigate these companies in their lawless mideast havens. That is why they moved out of the U.S. (and to avoid taxes).

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Helliburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''''s nothing anyone can do.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

[gunnerv1]

FeelFree1 I''ll bet that everytime your forced to say "Bush" you have to wash your mouth out with soap and water. Am I a war monger? Sure why not, I''ll accept the title. I retired from the Military 22 years ago, it didn''t bother me too much to be spit on back in the 70''s, because I knew then that I''ll was going to make a career out of it. Now, I get almost $2k a month for the rest of my life (and medical too) It was just a job that I enjoyed to the utmost. Blowing things/people up, what more could a redneck Southeren boy ask for, YeeHaw!

[brianbwb-2009]

"...that if a similar prohibition had been intended for the President, then such words would have also been written to effect it..." Posted by ToolMangler

I think the reverse is actually the case, if the drafters had intended for a president to unilaterally declare war, they would have written " the president, and/or congress shall..."

My take is that the authors did not want to give the president the power to send Americans to their deaths without permission of the representatives of the American people. Such an ability to commit to war without oversight, or review on what constitutes the "clear and present danger" would naturally and automatically lead to the president abusing the power, sending US soldiers to die for reasons of personal gain.

As we can see in the current situation, where the president has to dance around the rules in order to bring his Iraq agenda off, had there been no rules, we would have no recourse to address war crimes and other crimes committed by the Bush administration. Even if a weak congress cannot summon the courage to obey the law, at least there is a law for a future, braver congress...

[greco99-2009]

Here''s the problem -- if they prosecute Steven Green it means they can prosecute rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) law. He now falls into a phony ''legal loophole'' created by Bush and the Neocons.

Just consider the choice of law issue: which ''rules of evidence'' apply? Under phony Bush law, we get the result that *no* rules of evidence apply -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law enables prosecution of past illegal acts and ongoing investigations.

It is impossible to investigate these companies in their lawless mideast havens. That is why they moved out of the U.S. (and to avoid taxes).

The alleged Haliburton rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Helliburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''s nothing anyone can do.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

If they do find a way to prosecute Green...the law will apply to everyone who committed crimes in Iraq.

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about this case...and realize Steven Green will walk free.

[toolmangler-2009]

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court; however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.

Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.

After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The United States of America has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times.

[greco99-2009]

Here''''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.
He now falls into a phony ''''legal loophole'''' created by Bush and the Neocons.

Just consider the choice of law problem, which ''rules of evidence'' apply. Under phone Bush law we get the unique result that *no* rules of evidence applys -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law has profound results for past illegal acts and ongoing investigations.

The alleged Haliburton rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Hailburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''''s nothing anyone can do.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

If they do find a way to prosecute Green...the law will apply to everyone who committed crimes in Iraq...

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about the rape of a 14 year old...and realize Steven Green will walk free...

[toolmangler-2009]

Many against formal declarations of war also argue that such declarations "acknowledge sovereignty" of a target government often contended by the United States to be an illegitimate regime. By declaring war, the United States must acknowledge diplomatically that the target of hostilities are, in fact, the recognized leaders of the country with which the war is declared, therefore often weakening the argument for "liberating" a people of the said country from a tyrannical or illegitimate regime. However, the historical record disagrees somewhat on this point. The Barbary Coast War was clearly waged against a political entity not regarded as the legitimate government of its nation of operation; the Border War, quietly declared as it was, was waged against a single person, Pancho Villa. Needless to say, in both instances many hundreds if not thousands of people neither belonging to a political entity nor being Pancho Villa also died in the event. (It should be noted that in both of the above-cited cases, Congress did not actually declare war.) Furthermore, it is sometimes argued that there is nothing particularly wrong with acknowledging diplomatically that a target government is actually in power, be it through legitimate means or not

[toolmangler-2009]

Instead the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War."

There are also diplomatic reasons for a dislike of "declaring war" on a country, as it can often be perceived as holding an entire nation responsible for the actions of a few of its citizens. In the case of the most recent public opposition, those who support such actions have noted that, in the case of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no ''target'' for a legal declaration of war, rather political groups or individuals. On the other hand, many argue that since an invading army seeks to, or at least actually does, occupy and cause havoc to an entire target country and its population (as opposed to the target political groups or individuals), the aforementioned justifications are tenuous at best.

[toolmangler-2009]

Controversy regarding U.S. declarations of war
Those who oppose waging war without declaration point to Article I of the Constitution, which reads The Congress shall have the power to declare war.

In the case of smaller conflicts not requiring large commitments of manpower and money, many Americans believe that precedents have already been set for acting without the need for declarations of war. In the case of major conflicts, however, debate is centered around the aforesaid words of the United States Constitution.

Those who believe that formal declarations of war are not necessary, argue that since the Constitution expressly prohibits the states from engaging in war without consent of Congress unless actually invaded or in imminent danger, that if a similar prohibition had been intended for the President, then such words would have also been written to effect it. They also point to the military connotations of the phrases engaging in war (used in the aforesaid prohibition) and levying war (used in the definition of treason) as opposed to the diplomatic connotations of the phrase declare war. Further historical arguments point to the decisions to not issue a formal declaration of war preceding either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War, the latter decision being made by a Continental Congress comprising a number of those who went on to write the Constitution. Moreover, the term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the US Constitution.

[greco99-2009]

Here''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.
He now falls into a phony ''legal loophole'' created by Bush and the Neocons.

Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (or 4), Dyncorp employees kept child s.x slaves, and the U.S. does nothing -- that''s what justice means in Bush''s world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.

The alleged Haliburton rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Hailburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''s nothing anyone can do.

Or, maybe they will just detain him indefinately (or, at least past next election).

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

If they do find a way to prosecute Green...the law will apply to everyone who committed crimes in Iraq...

It is impossible to investigate these companies in their lawless mideast havens.

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about the rape of a 14 year old...and realize Steven Green will walk free...

[greco99-2009]

Here''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.

Steven Green now falls into one of the many Bush ''legal loopholes''.

Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (looks like 4 now), Dyncorp employees kept child *** slaves and the U.S. does nothing -- that''''''''s is what justice means in Bush''''''''s crazy world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.

Haliburton and Dyncorp rapists and killers fall into the same loophole as Steven Green.

Steven Green will walk free. He will be able to party with your daughter. Just like the Hailburton and Dyncorp rapists, he falls into the loophole. I bet they joke about it - after all, boys will be boys.

Or, maybe they will detain him indefinately without charges (at least until past the next election I''m sure).

Look at the contradictions in these cases and it is clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about the rape and killing of a 14 year old girl in front of her family...and then realize that Steven Green will walk free...

With the law as it is .. there is no way he will even be convicted of being a *** offender. And, if they do find a way to prosecute him...I don''t see why it does not apply to everyone else as well...

[greco99-2009]

Here''''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharges and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.

Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (looks like 4 now), Dyncorp employees kept child *** slaves and the U.S. does nothing -- that''''s is what justice means in Bush''''s crazy world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.


Steven Green will walk free. He will be able to party with your daughter. Just like the Hailburton and Dyncorp rapists he falls into the loophole. I bet they joke about it - after all, boys will be boys.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and it is clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Wait until people see Redacted and realize that Steven Green will walk free...

[feelfree1]

ToolMangler,

Re: "In other words, A "power" would have to issue a "If, Or, Then" statement to an ''''offending'''' party for it to be legal."

Nope. It needs to be in response to an eminent threat, or with the express consent of the U.N., with an accompaying U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force.

Neither apply.

According to our Constitution, it also requires a declarationof war by our Congress- the ONLY ones with authority in matters of war.

[toolmangler-2009]

Exactly two weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, this argument was advanced in a lengthy memo sent to the White House by John C. Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. %u201CThe President,%u201D Yoo wrote, %u201Cmay deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the states that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11%u2026.The Constitution confides in the President the authority, independent of any statute, to determine when a %u2018national emergency%u2019 caused by an attack on the United States exists.%u201D

And, exactly a year later, the Justice Department brought that sweeping argument to bear in the context of electronic eavesdropping to deal with foreign terrorist threats. In a legal brief, it claimed that %u201Cthe Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority.%u201D

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-collision-course-on-inherent-power/

[greco99-2009]

Here''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (looks like 4 now), Dyncorp employees kept child *** slaves and the U.S. does nothing -- that''s is what justice means in Bush''s crazy world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and it is clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

[toolmangler-2009]

Fruad based, undeclared, in violation of the Nuremberg Charter and the U.N. Charter (hence- illegal under our own Constitution), rife with widespread torture, rape, and wreckless to intentional slaughter of civilians, and countless other atrocities.
In other words, lacking any basis under the rule of law.
Posted by FeelFree1 at 07:52 PM : Dec 19, 2007



In other words, A "power" would have to issue a "If, Or, Then" statement to an ''offending'' party for it to be legal. As I recall the offending party here (Saddam) was asked and later told to leave office, he refused. He was asked, advised, told, warned, cajoled and warned again but still he refused, he was given an ''If'' you don''t leave ''Or'' surrender ''Then'' we will attack and force you out. he didn''t so Bushy_baby did. (see there, you made me say his name) , wash my mouth out with soap!!!